Forum Replies Created
Thank you to everyone who contributed to 5.0.0!
(I’ve updated WordPress.org and BuddyPress.org to this latest version.)
Sorry for the problems here. They should be fixed.
Congrats on the success of your community!
BuddyPress is designed and architected to scale quite elegantly, so long as the underlying hardware can also support it. It’s a bit of a non-answer, but is ultimately what it boils down to.
(For example, WordPress.org has about 13 million registered user accounts, and on any given day they are active across the various connected properties, but there are a few dozen web servers handling the constant database reads & writes, API calls for software updates, caching various parts, etc…)
Group creation (and subsequent user memberships) all eventually just bubble down to a singular and easy to use function call, so depending on your parameters, and with a small custom plugin, could be automated pretty easily. Nothing exists in BuddyPress itself to facilitate the automation part, but there’s nothing preventing it either.
Perhaps to more directly answer your question, there is no technical limitation to the number of users or groups or group members your community could have, beyond the limitations of MySQL, PHP, and modern computing itself (maximum 32 bit integer value, etc…)
Hey @steverusso66! I noticed you hit an error when you posted your reply; sorry about that.
Everything should be all fixed up now.
BuddyPress 2.8.x works OK with WordPress 4.8.
BuddyPress 2.9 is due out in the next few weeks.
This is an interesting problem, if I understand it correctly.
Your debug backtrace makes it look like the
$wp_admin_navarray is somehow getting overloaded by the
And it also looks like the
bp_setup_admin_baraction is returning a string, instead of the
array()that it’s hardcoded to pass in by default. It seems odd that PHP 7.1 would effect this, unless there’s something going on inside of
WP_Hook, or we’ve goofed somewhere that isn’t obvious.
Thanks for the post, and thank you everyone that chimed in to alert the OP about the protocol for security concerns. Understanding it’s possible there’s a communication gap here, this topic does also read (to my eyes) as condescending & inflammatory, which is honestly not going to yield a very positive conversation. I think y’all did a great job staying positive, and I for one greatly appreciate that.
To be clear to anyone else that runs into this topic, what the OP sees is not a BuddyPress or bbPress bug; this is WordPress doing it’s best to show published content from public post types.
* Neither BuddyPress nor bbPress modify this core behavior
* BuddyPress does not use this interface; bbPress does
* The .org sites have not disabled this, they just do not have any unusual content to leak
* If plugins allow for private content, it’s up to those plugins to protect it
* If you create roles with content limitations, it’s up to you to confirm they’re working
For anyone looking to modify or restrict content that appears in this list, use the
wp_link_queryfilters to do so.
Here is how WordPress calculates the results in this list. Note that it only uses published posts from public post-types:
$pts = get_post_types( array( 'public' => true ), 'objects' ); $pt_names = array_keys( $pts ); $query = array( 'post_type' => $pt_names, 'suppress_filters' => true, 'update_post_term_cache' => false, 'update_post_meta_cache' => false, 'post_status' => 'publish', 'posts_per_page' => 20, );
WordPress has a built-in way to calculate privacy scope using
'perm' => 'readable'and even that is not used here (though bbPress does use this in its own loops.) WordPress instead takes a strict position of published public content by default.
If anything unexpected is appearing here, it is not because of BuddyPress or bbPress, and we are still happy to help anyone discover the source of this in a new & more friendly topic.
Hi there! Where did you get the
codex.fr.buddypress.orgURL from? I have a hunch the reason you’re seeing this is because subdomains more than 1 level deep aren’t covered by our certificate, but I also don’t think we use those anywhere. If we do, we should correct those URLs to be more friendly.
That said, I suspect keeping codex content synchronized across multiple languages will be a pain. Maybe it’s easier (though obviously not very welcoming or inviting) to machine translate from English?
We’ve released 184.108.40.206 to address this.
It should appear in your dashboard shortly.
If the error is preventing you from accessing the dashboard, delete
wp-content/plugins/buddypresscompletely, and try again.
You can reinstall 2.2.3, and this error will go away.
Sorry for the embarrassing inconvenience.
Sorry about that confusion. It may have been a reply that ended up in moderation for a bit. We’re working on improving that in bbPress for 2.6, which is the prerelease version we’re running here.
Note that there is a Trac ticket for this also, should it turn out to be some kind of BuddyPress bug: https://buddypress.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/6194
I gave the Role bp_moderate but that did not solve the issue. There must be some other check that needs to be passed for these menu items to show up.
You may want to put a late filter on
map_meta_capto ensure it’s truly getting added, and not getting stomped or mapped back to
Maybe a compromise could be found and some new functionality for the front end could be introduced that allows you to assign someone as Group Admin. I think i am not the only one that sees value in that Role especially in a big community where you have the need to moderate but do not want to give people access to the backend or higher Administrative privileges.
You’re on the right track. Each component could (and maybe should) come with its own hierarchy of roles. Just because someone can manage users doesn’t mean they can manage groups, if that makes sense?
I also don’t quite understand why a Group admin could not be derived from one of the Forum Roles. A forum Moderator or Keymaster should be able to moderate all Forums incl. the private group ones and could subsequently also be allowed to manage all groups.
Anything is possible, but I’m not sure this approach is a safe assumption for all installations. At least not in its current iteration.
All good ideas. Thanks @ubernaut for the bump.
That’s no good. Thanks for the report. We’ll do some testing and report back with the results.
@agentswall Are you saying that the link to create groups is missing? Are you able to go to
groups/createmanually and see the form?
@modemlooper That’s not a bad idea. I’ll work towards that approach after 2.2 goes out today.
The goal was to draw attention to the fact that individual forum categories even exist, as a fair amount of topics in our forums end up in the wrong place.
Any suggestions how to emphasize individual forums without that emphasis being distracting to you?
Also @skyrant, it’s possible this is just a bug in our implementation, and using WordPress’s
add_menu_page()function, which requires a capability be passed into it that is consequently checked on the current site being accessed, and not the root site where the
bp_moderatecapability is likely to be assigned.
I’ve opened a ticket in our bug tracker to bring a bit more attention to this as a bigger issue, so if you end up creating any patches, go ahead and drop them there:
Hey @ubernaut. All thoughtful consideration is appreciated and encouraged, but your “doesn’t currently exist in buddypress” response was neither, considering @skyrant appeared to already frustrated by BuddyPress not performing to his expectations.
It was also inaccurate, as functions like
bp_current_user_can()exist explicitly to enable developers to extend this functionality. If skyrant is unable to make it work, more open-ended questions about the approach will help us figure out what’s not working correctly, be it on his/her end or ours.
please let me know if you feel like my participation is no longer desired around here
This isn’t the case, and if it ever was to be, never let that stop you anyways. We are all trying to build cool things and improve the world through better open-source community software. It’s inclusive at it’s core. Only twice in eight years have we excluded anyone because of clearly malicious abuse of other members, and it still bothers me to have needed to do so.
You can also look at our
_bp_enforce_bp_moderate_cap_for_admins()function for a clue as to what might be preventing your
bp_moderaterole and capability checks from needing the additional
Hey @skyrant, project lead chiming in here. Apologies for @ubernaut’s response; it doesn’t come across as very helpful or inviting, nor does it point you in any directions as to where to start building this type of functionality, which is the type of helpful reply I would expect from our forums normally.
You’ll want to look into WordPress’s
map_meta_capfilter, and more specifically, our
In the old days, we used a bunch of
is_super_admin()checks to only allow the type of access you desire to network administrators. This proved to be too powerful an assumption once BuddyPress started working on Single-Site installations, and so we ported (almost) everything to checking for
You could create a new role and grant it the
bp_moderatecapability. In doing so, any user with that role will have the ability to moderate the entire BuddyPress community.
This also is a bit more powerful than we would like it to be, and in the future we hope to introduce dedicated roles and capabilities all through-out BuddyPress very similarly to the way we did with bbPress. It’s not in the immediate roadmap however, so if this is an area you’re interested in, and want to help us improve it, let’s keep a dialogue going here and see if anyone else chimes in.
@danbp How many links do you think is appropriate? Happy to experiment with different values.
Thanks for the mention, and sorry your topic got caught in our moderation queue (for having 2 or more links in it). I purposely didn’t post anything here, just to keep my initiatives separated from the project itself, but figure this is as good a place as any to have some open discussion about it, too.
Ouch. Sorry to hear that these specific queries are resulting in a slower experience. That certainly wasn’t the plan on our end. Are you able to provide an exact spec so that we can duplicate your approach? That will go a long way towards allowing us to figure out what’s happening, and improve/fix it.